Neo-Modernity: a New Framework for Political Reality the Middle Eastern Case
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Neo-Modernity: A New Framework for Political Reality The Middle Eastern Case Vassily A. Kuznetsov Vassily A. Kuznetsov, PhD in History Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia Head of the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies SPIN-RSCI: 8052-7393 IstinaResearcherID (IRID): 3553785 Scopus AuthorID: 57196044428 E-mail: [email protected] Address: 12 Rozhdestvenka Str., Moscow 107031, Russia DOI: 10.31278/1810-6374-2020-18-2-132-154 Abstract This paper explores the possibility of considering neo-modernism as a framework concept for studying political processes in the Middle East. The study starts with an analysis of the notion of neo-modernity as a new way of treating reality that emerged out of postmodernism as a reaction to its totalizing criticism. A comparative analysis of the main publications on the matter has revealed key features of neo-modernism: the ability to avoid postmodern fragmentariness, problematization of values and meanings, and return to metanarratives. In the political realm, these features manifest themselves in five ways: the search for new political unities; the growing demand for projects of the future and for ideology; the creation of a new political mythology; the use of postmodern tools in political practice; and awareness of the fundamental instability of the current state of affairs. The main features of neo-modernism have been scrutinized with reference to the specific Middle Eastern political reality at the regional, national, and 132 RUSSIA IN GLOBAL AFFAIRS Neo-Modernity: A New Framework for Political Reality social levels. This approach has revealed the search for new regional, sub- regional, and national unities in the Middle East, as well as the creation of new ideologies, often directly related to attempts to devise new national development strategies, and the emergence (and sometimes deliberate engineering) of new elements of political mythologies. Keywords: neo-modernity, postmodernity, the Middle East, the Arab world, Islam hematically and methodologically, this paper is a continuation of my essay published in Russia in Global Affairs a year ago (Kuznetsov, 2019), as well as several earlier works. This article Tpursues two goals: first, it seeks to add new touches to the concept of neo-modernity and, second, it attempts to use it for analyzing current political processes in the Middle East. NEOMODERNITY AS A FRAMEWORK CONCEPT FOR TODAY’S REALITY: HISTORIOGRAPHIC SETTING Although at first glance the word ‘neo-modernity’ does not look particularly original and seems to be almost clear in meaning, the set of ideas it is meant to convey is very difficult to describe. Russian researcher A. Pavlov was probably right when he said that “what could be called the concept of ‘neomodernism’ hardly exists as something well-defined or at least understandable” (Pavlov, 2019, p.195). This is what makes neo-modernity basically different from meta-modernity conceptualized by R. van den Akker and T. Vermeulen (2019, pp.39- 82) and from other variants of postpostmodernism (performatism, altermodernism, digimodernism, automodernism, etc.). For all its drawbacks, this situation certainly gives us obvious advantages: conceptual incompleteness offers ample opportunities for further theoretical pursuits. And yet, it would be appropriate to revisit the writings (there are not so many of them) that draw on the concept of ‘neo-modernity.’ Leaving aside very specific works on architecture, where ‘neo-modernity’ means a certain style characterized by simplicity and functionality VOL. 18 • No.2 • APRIL – JUNE • 2020 133 Vassily A. Kuznetsov (Ciarkowski, 2016), I will focus on those publications whose authors, even while talking about individual cultural phenomena, view neo- modernity as a broader notion. In total, there are about a dozen such texts. The first publication I know of, which used the term ‘neomodernism,’ was an article by art critic Victor Grauer, Modernism/Postmodernism/Neomodernism (Grauer, 1981-82). A decade later, it was followed by American sociologist Edward Tiryakian’s article, Modernization: Exhumetur in Pace in 1991 and his other article, Retinking Modernization: Legacies of Parsons and Hilbert in 1996; L. Vyazmitinova’s review of D. Vodennikov’s 1999 book of poems Holiday; two neo-modernism manifestos published in 2000 by Western painters—one by Guy Denning and the other one, by Arman Bayraktar, André Durand, and Scott Norwood Witts; a 2003 monograph by American sociologist Jeffrey Alexander, The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology, (Russian-language edition 2013); a monograph of literary scholar A. Zhitenev, The Poetry of Neo-Modernism (2012); works by Polish film critics Rafał Syska (2014) and Miłosz Stelmach (2016) dedicated to neo-modern cinema (2012-2016); a manifesto by Russian philosopher and cultural scientist A. Pelipenko (2016) and its review by O. Glukhova (2016); analytical articles posted on the RIAC website by E. Alekseenkova in 2016 (while avoiding this term, she nevertheless refers to articles on neo-modernity and argues with their authors) and by A. Kortunov and I. Gibelev in 2017; a philosophical article by I. Gibelev, Neomodernity as an Opportunity (2018); and finally an article by art historian Michael Eden, Neo-Modernism: Soul Nourishing Renaissance (2018). I deliberately did not include my own texts in this list of publications. Even a cursory look at this list reveals some peculiarities. Firstly, the works mentioned above belong to completely different fields of humanitarian knowledge: philosophy, theoretical sociology, applied political research, literary and art studies. The first works to be published were written by literary scholars and artists. Then followed pub- lications written by sociologists and political researchers, and only later, by philosophers (standing out among them are articles by V. Grauer and 134 RUSSIA IN GLOBAL AFFAIRS Neo-Modernity: A New Framework for Political Reality E. Tiryakian, which were written much earlier than the others and were almost unrelated to them). Such an order is obviously due not only to basically different genres of the publications (from artistic manifestos to monographs), but also to the specificity of different spheres of knowledge, which require different time to comprehend reality and produce texts. Secondly, putting aside Grauer’s article, which stands quite by itself, one can see that most of the texts were published in two waves—in 1991-2003 and 2012-2018, and it seems that the authors of the second wave hardly paid much attention to their predecessors, although some of them knew about their works. Several lines of knowledge continuity can be traced here. For example, J. Alexander mentions E. Tiryakian’s article, and I. Gibelev refers to publications by E. Alekseenkova (2016), A. Kortunov (2017), and V. Kuznetsov (2019), although in his latest article he does not mention them. G. Denning and a group of painters led by A. Bayraktar seem to have known about each other’s manifestos, and M. Eden read both. Finally, A. Zhitenev mentions a review by L. Vyazmitinova. So, here is a typical situation of fragmented knowledge where artists read artists, sociologists read sociologists, etc., but none of them has the whole picture. Presumably, both groups of texts were prompted by a sense of a fundamental change in the surrounding reality and the need to find new mechanisms to explain it. The authors of the first wave were fully aware of this situation. And although they attributed it to different circumstances, explicitly or implicitly it correlated with the events of the late 1980s and early 1990s, which not only put an end to the bipolar system of international relations, but also forced painters and writers to rethink both the surrounding reality and their relations with it. E. Tiryakian understood “neo-modernization” as an urgent need to revive the theory of modernization in the new global political and economic conditions. Jeffrey Alexander notes that in politics neo- modernism has gained power because political revolutions of the last decade have revived a truly heroic narrative, thus expressly defying the postmodern decline (2013, p.572). While exploring the origins of neo-modernity, L. Vyazmitinova speaks about attempts to overcome VOL. 18 • No.2 • APRIL – JUNE • 2020 135 Vassily A. Kuznetsov the “unsupportedness” of postmodernism and the fragmentariness of the author’s “self” caused by it; G. Denning talks about the oblivion of “aesthetic sensitivity” and the diktat of artistic policy and political correctness (this resonates with V. Grauer’s thoughts); and A. Durand states the death of art as such. In general, all these texts have one thing in common: fatigue from postmodern play and the striving for a new sincerity, which was predicted by V. Grauer and which was then extolled by some metamodernists (Eden, 2018), while others preferred to talk about “post-irony” (Constantinou, 2019), contrasting it with the previously discovered “new sincerity” (Kelly, 2010). The authors of the second wave reason differently. A. Pelipenko, in a rather hysterical manner reminiscent partly of the Soviet agitprop of the 1920s and partly of post-Soviet non-mainstream radical publications, predicts an anthropological catastrophe if mankind does not abandon decadent postmodernism (“Down with postmodernism in public life, policy and morals! Down with all its discourses and creations: political correctness, multiculturalism, pacifism, and left-wing liberal ideology!” (2016, p.49)) to turn